News
Nass rips regents over marriage ban
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Tom Schalmo:
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
A Republican state legislator called for an ethical investigation Thursday into the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents' formal declaration of public opposition to the state's proposed constitutional marriage amendment.
Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, issued a letter to Roth Judd, director of the State Ethics Board, denouncing the Board of Regents for taking a stance on the issue.
"The Regents and UW System are clearly attempting to provide the defeat of the constitutional amendment using state resources, a clear violation of the law," Nass said in a release.
According to Nass, the board violated two state statutes prohibiting a state public official from "using the services of governmental employees and other resources to advocate the passage or defeat of a referendum."
In an interview with The Badger Herald Thursday, Board of Regents President David Walsh said the board was not in violation of the state statutes.
"Any time you appear in front of the state Legislature or issue press releases, you're using resources," Walsh said.
Walsh added he's not worried about Nass' claim.
"[The Ethics Board] will look into it, and they'll rule accordingly," Walsh said. "I'm not concerned."
Nass cited an interview Walsh conducted Tuesday with WISN radio in Milwaukee, in which Walsh said the regents taking a stance was a political move.
But Walsh did not deny the politics of the decision, saying the Board of Regents took the stance because of concerns the passage of the amendment could hurt the UW System.
"If our body listens to testimony and makes a decision in the best interest of the university, that's political at all times," Walsh said.
In addition, Nass criticized Walsh for telling WISN the board wants to affect the vote and the amendment would "hurt the UW System on a competitive basis."
Walsh, though, confirmed the Board of Regents wants the vote to turn out in the best interest of the system.
"All I said is that there's an election coming up, and we hope our opinion sways people," he said.
At the Board of Regents' meeting in Platteville last Friday, Regent Charles Pruitt said the amendment would prevent the UW System from being fully competitive.
"The language of the amendment creates uncertainty for the capability to provide domestic-partner benefits," Pruitt said.
The board passed a resolution against the amendment, with Regent Gerard Randall acting alone in voting against it.
Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, joined Nass in immediately denouncing the regents after their decision last Friday, accusing them of playing politics.
Nass did not return phone calls from The Badger Herald Thursday afternoon.
UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley previously said the amendment would hurt the university in deterring potential staff members because of the lack of domestic-partner benefits.
And UW-Madison Provost Patrick Farrell said Tuesday he is reluctant to put the university on record, but added he was personally opposed to the amendment.
"If I'm not the provost and just myself, then I'm vigorously opposed to this," Farrell said. "It will hurt the university, but I think the university really can't take political stands even on something like that, where it's clearly against their best interests to see that passed."
However, Farrell did say he has no problem with the Board of Regents taking a stance.
The amendment referendum will appear on the ballot in the Nov. 7 general election.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
OK, OK, no one take a stance or else the terrorists will win. This is a post-9/11 world where no one is allowed to have an opinion before the president tells us what to think. We’re waiting patiently for instruction, Dear Leader.
How would Nass have reacted had the regents agreed with him? I’m betting he would have trumpeted their position all over the state.
Nass is a hypocrite and a tool.
Well, whatever you think of Nass, UW keeps putting its foot in its mouth. They have inserted themselves into this marriage debate unnecessarily, and perhaps they broke the law too. It could even generate a backlash, given UW’s low poll numbers. It was dumb and foolish. It just plays into Green’s suggestion that a shake up is needed.